The Tribunal held that arrears of a deceased employee must be taxed only in the legal heir’s representative capacity. The assessment made solely in individual capacity was deleted.
The Tribunal directed fresh examination of whether the government allocation received by the assessee constituted a corpus fund under section 11(1)(d). It held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee’s submissions, requiring the matter to be verified afresh.
The Court held that vehicles were detained and penalty collected without any seizure or adjudication order. It directed refund and allowed authorities to issue a proper show cause notice.
The Court refused to intervene against an SCN combining several financial years, noting that such consolidation is permitted under Sections 73 and 74. Since an appellate remedy existed, the assessee was relegated to appeal, with extension of time due to the pending writ. Recovery actions and attachments were set aside subject to filing the appeal.
Chauhan Kirana Trading Vs Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) The petitioner challenged an order dated 5 April 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer for the period April 2018 to March 2019, raising a demand of ₹11,98,884. The petitioner also challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 27 December 2023 and […]
The High Court remanded the assessment order after finding the petitioner was unaware of the SCN and did not attend a personal hearing. The matter will be reconsidered after the petitioner files a reply and a fresh hearing is conducted.
The Court held that a GST demand for a pre-liquidation period could not be enforced after the corporate debtor was sold as a going concern with NCLT confirmation. It ruled that all past dues stood extinguished and the tax proceeding was invalid.
The Court confirmed that statements recorded during a survey cannot form the basis for tax additions if the assessee is not allowed to challenge them.
Court noted that documented share purchases, demat holdings, and stock-exchange sales were not properly evaluated by the AO. The ITAT’s factual findings were upheld.
The Court held that a provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year under Section 83 and ordered release of the account with a requirement to maintain a ₹10 lakh minimum balance.
